Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros












Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Expert Rev Vaccines ; 21(10): 1377-1394, 2022 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35986451

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Since its emergence, there have been huge efforts to design vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to inhibit its interpersonal spread. Global vaccine development is the most promising cost-effective method for overcoming the epidemic. However, following reports of post-vaccination thromboembolic adverse effects, there have been raising concerns about the safety profile of the COVID-19 vaccine. AREAS COVERED: We aimed to review the recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved vaccines and identify the organ-based major complications of COVID-19 vaccines based on reliable published studies. To find high-quality and large-scale observational, clinical trial, and cohort studies, PubMED, Scholar, Embase, and Web of Science were searched using keywords: COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, vaccine, Pfizer (BNT162b2), Johnson and Johnson (Ad26.COV2), Moderna (mRNA-1273), Oxford AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1nCoV19), Coronavac (Sinovac), BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm), adverse effect, and complication. To include all relevant articles, backward searching was also done on similar article citations. Case reports, studies including less than 10 participants, and biased articles were excluded. EXPERT OPINION: Based on data from high-quality and population-based studies, major adverse effects are divided into four major organ-specific groups, including cardiovascular, neurologic, hematologic, and immune-allergic side effects. The incidence of most of these side effects is not different between vaccinated and normal populations, and currently, the benefits of vaccination against COVID-19 are greater than the mortality and morbidity risks of COVID-19 infection. However, further studies, specifically systematic review and meta-analysis, are still indicated to investigate further unknown side effects of these vaccines and the existence of causality between the vaccine and reported adverse events.


Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Vacuna BNT162 , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/efectos adversos , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , Estados Unidos , Vacunación
2.
Med Princ Pract ; 20(5): 433-7, 2011.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21757932

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of preoperative intravenous or peritonsillar infiltration of ketamine for postoperative pain control in children following adenotonsillectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 78 children between 5 and 18 years of age who were scheduled for elective adenotonsillectomy were randomly assigned to four groups: group 1 (n = 19) received intravenous ketamine (0.5 mg/kg), group 2 (n = 21) intravenous normal saline, group 3 (n = 19) ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) injected through the tonsillar capsule, and group 4 (n = 19) normal saline injected in the same location. The incidence of postoperative pain and vomiting as well as the severity of postoperative pain were compared between study groups during the 6-hour postoperative period using a visual analog scale (VAS) at rest, upon swallowing saliva, drinking liquids and eating ice cream. RESULTS: There were no demographic differences between the four groups. The incidence of postoperative pain was significantly lower in groups 1 [7 (36.8%) vs. 10 (47.6%); p = 0.032] and 3 [5 (31.5%) vs. 12 (63.2%); p = 0.001] compared with their controls. The amount (in milligrams) of pethidine and metoclopramide used for pain and nausea control was significantly lower in groups 1 (12.5 ± 5.3 vs. 19.6 ± 9.6 mg, p = 0.038, and 2.9 ± 1.1 vs. 4.6 ± 2.6 mg, p = 0.042, respectively) and 3 (8.6 ± 3.1 vs. 21.6 ± 8.4 mg, p < 0.001, and 1.6 ± 0.9 vs. 5.3 ± 3.2 mg, p = 0.002, respectively) compared with their controls. These values were also higher in group 1 compared with group 3. The VAS scores on swallowing saliva (3.9 ± 2.7 vs. 2.7 ± 1.2; p = 0.018), on drinking liquids (3.7 ± 2.6 vs. 2.8 ± 1.6; p = 0.013) and on eating ice-cream (4.3 ± 2.4 vs. 2.8 ± 1.5; p = 0.001) were also significantly higher in group 1 compared with group 3. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that peritonsillar infiltration of ketamine was more effective in reducing the postoperative pain severity, need for analgesics and need for antiemetics. Thus, peritonsillar infiltration of ketamine is suggested for postoperative pain control in those undergoing adenotonsillectomy.


Asunto(s)
Adenoidectomía/efectos adversos , Anestésicos Disociativos/administración & dosificación , Ketamina/administración & dosificación , Dolor Postoperatorio/tratamiento farmacológico , Tonsilectomía/efectos adversos , Adolescente , Análisis de Varianza , Anestésicos Disociativos/uso terapéutico , Antieméticos/uso terapéutico , Ansiedad/psicología , Niño , Preescolar , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Humanos , Incidencia , Infusiones Intravenosas , Ketamina/uso terapéutico , Masculino , Dimensión del Dolor , Dolor Postoperatorio/epidemiología , Placebos , Náusea y Vómito Posoperatorios/tratamiento farmacológico , Náusea y Vómito Posoperatorios/epidemiología , Periodo Posoperatorio , Psicometría , Factores de Riesgo
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...